ubuntu-tweak in new

[LI Daobing]

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 21:43, Stephan Hermann <sh at sourcecode.de> wrote:
> moins,
>
>
> On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 10:21 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:16:05 pm LI Daobing wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:09, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:05:25 pm LI Daobing wrote:
>> > >> Hello,
>> > >>
>> > >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 09:00, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 01:29:46 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>> > >> >> Ubuntu Tweak is waiting for approval in New queue.
>> > >> >> http://ubuntu-tweak.com/
>> > >> >> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/252140
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Is this something MOTU wants included?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > No.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > It looks to me like something that, in addition to proper packaging,
>> > >> > ought to have a thorough functional review before entering the
>> > >> > archive.
>> > >>
>> > >> I am the packager of ubuntu-tweak, can you tell me what's the problem
>> > >> with ubuntu-tweak?
>> > >
>> > > I don't know that there is a problem, but given the invasive nature of
>> > > it's functionality, I think it appropriate for it to be given more of a
>> > > review than just being packaged properly.  In Ubuntu's history there
>> > > have been multiple "Tweak" programs and so far they have always proved
>> > > to be more harmful than helpful at the scale the Ubuntu archive
>> > > operates.
>> > >
>> > > This one may be the one that gets it right, but having found that they
>> > > rebrand PPAs that other people maintain as there's on their web site,
>> > > I'm not at all inclined to assume this is all well intentioned.
>> >
>> > you are right.
>> >
>> > this package is active-maintained, and I'll forward your opinion to
>> > the upstream author. I think he'll fix this bug.
>> >
>> > ubuntu-tweak is very useful for me, and it's also has many users. so I
>> > want to push it to Ubuntu and hope it can catch ubuntu 10.10.
>> >
>> > thanks.
>>
>> I don't have a lot of time for a detailed review.  A quick look shows that
>> this can enable quite a number of untrusted repositories.  My recollection is
>> that we although Envy was initially accepted doing something similar it was
>> required to be fixed to not do this.  I don't think a package that adds
>> untrusted repositories is suitable.
>
> Yes, it can enable a lot of untrusted sources, but I don't understand
> how it does it.
> under "software-center" there are lot of archives, which are not ubuntu
> official, but they are greyed out...and with the "unlock" button it does
> nothing (I took the version from revu)

the unlock button will let you input your sudo password. then he can
modify /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ dir.

>
> Tbh, everything what's in there is already available on a standard gnome
> desktop. We don't need a copy of update-manager, software-center or
> whatever is in there...

it's somehow different, for example, the amule ppa shipped with
ubuntu-tweak has DLP function, which is important for us.

it also provide some snapshot version program (just like gcc-snapshot
which already in ubuntu).

>
> I even don't like descriptions like there are in
> ubuntutweak/common/appdata.py.
>
> It think that this could give us a sitution as we had during times when
> we had the unofficial backport times...
>
> I will not give a +1 for this tool in the official ubuntu archives.
>
I still think this package is suitable for universe.

:)

Thanks


-- 
Best Regards
LI Daobing